Greenpeace International, the worldwide activist environmental group
located in Amsterdam, has been in Ukraine since 1990, when it initiated
a medical project to diagnose and treat children who suffered from the fallout
of the Chornobyl explosion. Since 1993 Greenpeace Ukraine has existed as
an independent public environmental organization and as a national office
of Greenpeace International.

Today Greenpeace Ukraine has a two-pronged agenda: (1) to push for alternative
energy sources and the shutdown of RBMK reactors and deal effectively with
the aftereffects of Chornobyl; and (2) to focus attention on the extensive
toxic pollution in Ukraine, including chemical, air and water pollution,
and how to reduce it.

The Kyiv office has 14 staffers and an organized support structure of
volunteers throughout the country. Its 1995 budget was $200,000.

The Weekly interviewed Antony Froggatt, the representative of Greenpeace
International for the former Soviet Union and Central and Western Europe,
on April 9 while he was in Kyiv. Mr. Froggatt, 29, graduated from Westminster
University in London with a degree in ecology. The following edited interview
was conducted by Staff Editor Roman Woronowycz.

Q: What are the ramifications 10 years after the Chornobyl reactor
exploded.

A: There are a huge number. First of all, look at the area of land contaminated.
The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 160,000
square kilometers is still contaminated, that is in the three republics,
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Within that, somewhere between 6 and 9 million
people still live in the contaminated area.

According to the World Health Organization, about 270,000 live in areas
where they should be evacuated, the levels of contamination are just so
high.

Between 400,000 and 500,000 people were evacuated in total. As far away
as the United Kingdom there are still restrictions on agricultural practices.
It is truly a continental disaster.

Q: In what way are there restrictions in the U.K.?

A: Restrictions, basically, are on the sale of meat in sheep. The sheep
have to be brought to different, lower areas of land [from where they have
historically grazed] to allow the radioactivity to decrease.

Q: Are the animals tested for radioactive levels?

A: Yes, officials know which farms have restrictions placed upon them.
In January 1996, there were still 219 farms with restrictions.

Q: Are these farmers being compensated for this by the British government?

A: The total British compensation has to date been $18 million. Germany
has paid out $307 million because of the accident, in Austria - $94 million.
This is a good example of the truly global nature of the accident.

Then, in terms of the health impact: For a long time, for five or six
years after the accident, the international community was saying that you
are unlikely to see any significant health impacts. The World Health Organization
even today is saying that only 30 or so people died as a result of the accident.
But in 1992-1993 [Ukraine] started to see an increase in thyroid cancers
among children.

Today in Belarus, there is a 100-fold increase in the country as a whole
of thyroid cancer among children. In the highly contaminated areas of Homiel,
there is a 200 times increase.

The thing that makes this important is the children that are affected,
but also, many health and radiation experts say that this one is the indicator;
[thyroid cancer] is the first disease you would expect to see within the
larger population.

Then you have the question about what other health impacts you might
see. This week there was a conference going on in Vienna organized by the
International Atomic Energy Agency in which they are discussing this sort
of issue. At the moment, unfortunately, organizations like them and others
are saying that thyroid cancer is the only disease that we can see at the
present time. This is contradicted by a number of people, by the World Health
Organization in fact.

Q: Is there any documentation that physical mutations have occurred,
animals born with five legs, two heads?

A: There were many pictures that came out in the early nineties. As to
how much of this could be directly related to the accident and how much
was in the natural population but just noticed more has never really been
investigated to a sufficient degree.

This is one of the problems regarding that; the other is the synergistic
effects, because there is also other heavy environmental damage that exists,
heavy metal, pesticides, etc.

One of the real problems that exists is the longevity of the radionuclides.
Most of the contamination that you see today is of cesium-137. Basically,
it has a half-life of 30 years, so the levels of contamination we see today
will be around for generations, there will be only a slow reduction.

There is, of course, plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,000 years,
but the quantities dispersed were much smaller.

Q: What does Greenpeace think is important to emphasize, to put on
the public agenda in terms of Chornobyl and its aftereffects?

A: There are two basic points. First and foremost, the Chornobyl station
is still operating. Units 1 and 3 are still generating electricity. This
clearly has to stop. The reactors themselves have serious design flaws.
On top of that, you have aging components, a lack of regulatory regimes,
all of which, in the words of the U.S. Department of Energy, make these
probably more dangerous than in 1986. Clearly these reactors need to be
shut down.

Secondly, the sarcophagus, the structure around Unit 4, is collapsing.
It was built under extreme conditions between May and November 1986. It
was supposed to last 30 years. People say it will be lucky if it lasts another
10.

Two things need to happen. One is there needs to be urgent work to shore
the thing up. Secondly, and this is in the more medium-term, they need to
replace it, however this is going to be very expensive. Estimates undertaken
for the European Commission say it will cost around $1.5 billion.

Ukraine does not have that type of resources. Western taxpayers, basically,
are going to have to pay. This is the price we all have to pay for the nuclear
industry.

On top of that you have measures that are needed in terms of trying to
reduce the dose that individual people have absorbed, trying to assist them
in getting cleaner food. If there needs to be more relocation, then Western
financing will have to assist them.

Q: Why is Chornobyl not higher on the public agenda?

A: From the U.S. perspective it is a very long way away. Not many people
in the U.S. have an affinity with Ukraine or Russia.

It's probably not top of the list [in Europe], but people are aware of
it, in Germany and other places, places that received the contamination.
It's always a reminder to them of what happened 10 years ago and that it
could happen again; you were affected individually.

Obviously, however, it is not high enough on the political agenda for
any real improvements to have taken place in the last 10 years, and I think
that is the really sad thing; we haven't seen this design of reactor shut
down, they can't be made significantly safer and the threat of another Chornobyl
still exists.

Q: Why do politicians not seem to be acutely aware of the problems,
or why do they seem to downplay them?

A: Countries that have nuclear power do not necessarily want to raise
the specter of another accident, because it may well draw back to themselves
the dangers of their own reactors.

A second thing is that it is very clear that within the politics of Russia
MinAtom (the nuclear ministry) is very, very powerful. The person who heads
it up, Viktor Mykhailov, was formerly head of the weapons program in Russia,
he's very, very powerful. MinAtom, basically, will fight tooth and nail
to keep any reactor operating. As you have seen with the sale of nuclear
reactors to Iran, the U.S. tried very hard to stop that sale and was not
successful.

So there is the very real political force of the Russian nuclear industry,
and the Russian nuclear industry is also very much encouraging Ukraine's
to keep operating Chornobyl. They do not want to see the West interfering
in what they perceive as their backyard. This is a very difficult political
situation.

Q: How about the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)? Does Greenpeace
think they have adequately addressed the problems of Chornobyl?

A: If you look at their record, it doesn't stand up, really. First of
all, they organized a conference in the second half of 1986 to look at the
causes of Chornobyl and, basically, they took the Soviet line all the way
and said that it was operator error rather than design error.

Their defense could be that this was all the material [available] to
them, but I just don't agree. I think that their recommendations and their
conclusions from that study were used against the operators who were subsequently
sent to prison. They should not have been so naive, if naive is the right
word, to believe what they were told about how good the design of the RBMK
was. Even prior to 1986 they had articles published by the international
atomic energy industry bulletin saying what good reactors RBMKs are. Clearly
it isn't a good design.

Even today, just last week when the IAEA had a meeting on RBMKs, they
did not conclude that RBMKs should be shut down. It is very clear that they
should, that they cannot be brought up to an acceptable safety standard.

It is clear that the IAEA does not do its job, if its job is to be a
watchdog for the nuclear power industry.

Q: Why do you think that, when to most of world it seems to be clear
that RBMKs are flawed and not adequately safe, the IAEA continues to be
a proponent?

A: It is basically because the IAEA has a dual function. Article 4 of
their charter says that it should promote nuclear power. It's an anachronism
that you have a so-called watchdog or regulator and a promoter under the
same body. It just doesn't work. If you look at national institutions, in
the majority these functions have been split. But on the international level
it hasn't.

The [IAEA] has a conflict of interest, and unfortunately, they tend to
fall down on the promotional side as opposed to the regulatory side.

Q: How about the G-7, do you think it has dealt adequately with Chornobyl
in terms of finances, or made adequate recommendations to resolve the problems
of Chornobyl?

A: No. In every G-7 summit since 1992 they've made statements saying,
"we welcome the work that has been done on Eastern European nuclear
safety," or "we urge the quick closure of high-risk RBMKs and
the first generation of EBR reactors," but this has not happened. The
G-7 commissioned the World Bank, the International Energy Agency [sic] and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to come out
with specific plans about how to reduce nuclear risks in Central and Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union; these have not been followed up.

The reactors are still operating, none of the so-called high-risk reactors
have been closed permanently since 1986. Basically, the G-7 has not achieved
what it set out to do.

Q: What more could it do? I mean, are we talking strictly about money
here?

A: There are two things. There needs to be more money put into assisting
the energy sector in the region. But in some ways the most important thing
is the direction for this money. The whole problem exists in that nobody
will shut down the reactors until the replacement is put forward. In Ukraine,
the nuclear power plants contribute 30 to 35 percent of the country's electricity.
They are not going to shut them down overnight unless there are alternatives.

Now Chornobyl contributes only 7 percent to the country's electricity.
Unfortunately, nobody is investing in alternative energy, or at a quick
enough rate to enable this to happen, to shut down Chornobyl.

The obvious thing, which is staring everyone in the face, yet no one
is really tackling it, is the question of energy efficiency and energy saving.

In Ukraine they use about seven times as much energy per unit of gross
national product as, say, we do in the U.K. So there is a huge potential
for energy savings. This type of investment is absolutely crucial for both
the environment and the country's economy.

In the past, Russia controlled all the supplies of fuel to Ukraine and
the countries of the former Soviet Union, and this was supplied at little
or no cost, so there was no incentive to save energy. Consequently, the
industry is wasting huge amounts of energy. Also, in terms of the domestic
sector, in the flat I live in now there are no valves on the radiator and
no thermostat. So when it gets too hot, the only thing you can do is open
up the window, and this is madness.

This is why the country continues to operate nuclear power plants, because
there is no way in which individuals can save energy, there is no incentive
for business to save energy. This is where the direction of Western assistance
needs to go. Even the government says that you can save 10 percent of the
country's energy demands through measures that will cost nothing, or very
little.

This is where Western governments need to assist. It is not easy, it
involves structural changes, changes in practice, but it is essential to
the environment.

Q: Besides a statement by President Leonid Kuchma not long ago, I
haven't noticed any attempts by the government to promote or market energy
efficiency and savings.

A: Not yet. It is a very slow process. They have set up an Institute
for Energy Saving Problems, as they call it. This process has gradually
started. In Kyiv there is the energy efficiency center sponsored by the
European Commission. The USAID is doing work on energy efficiency here.
The studies are being done, the pilot projects are now starting, but this
needs to be accelerated. And this is where money needs to be directed.

This is one of the unfortunate things: a memorandum of understanding
signed by the G-7, the European Union and the government of Ukraine, which
seeks the closure of Chornobyl by the year 2000. They put together a package
of energy grants to the tune of $500 million and energy loans to the tune
of about $1.8 billion. But the majority of the loan will go to the completion
of more nuclear reactors in Ukraine, and there is only a small amount, if
anything, on energy efficiency loans, or grants. They're just wasting the
opportunity. They're putting together a package to enable the closure of
Chornobyl, yet the package is in the wrong direction.

Q: Do you see the 10th anniversary commemorations as something that
will help propel Chornobyl higher up on the world's public agenda? Are you
optimistic that some issues will finally be resolved?

A: A mixture. I am very hopeful that the G-7 will do the right thing
in Moscow, that they will push forward with a memorandum of understanding
and really do start escalating the energy efficiency effort

In terms of revamping the energy structure in Ukraine, which is one of
the key things to avoid another Chornobyl, I think it has to happen. As
you start seeing the changes in energy pricing, you'll start seeing energy
efficiency. When you start seeing some energy efficiency, one hopes that
then this will escalate and people will be motivated to start saving energy
and instituting energy efficiency measures. Once this happens and people
can see the benefits, then the potential will be there to start closing
down reactors.

As for the longer term future for people, the millions of people who
live in contaminated areas, this is very difficult because it is a human
tragedy on such a huge scale - how will their plights be dealt with is just
impossible to know. Clearly more money has to be given directly to them
and disbursed through the United Nations. It is clear at the present moment
the U.N. is saying that we haven't got any more money for this.

Q: What is Greenpeace planning for Ukraine in terms of 10th anniversary
commemorations?

A: As we speak, a tour is in the western part of the country to talk
to people about Chornobyl and asking people to put their thoughts on Chornobyl
down in a book, which will later be presented to the government. At the
same time they are talking about alternatives to nuclear power, alternatives
to fossil fuels. This is now on its second leg.

Also, the week of the anniversary a large bus which Greenpeace has will
come to Kyiv with an alternative energy exhibition. It has solar panels
and items to show what is the alternative energy future. Around the anniversary
there is an alternative energy conference taking place, so we will park
the bus there and show people how it can work.

That's just two things, there will be other activities involving the
public, asking them to be involved, petitions, etc.